Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. I'll take that as agreement that it would not constitute previous notice. đŸ™‚
  2. The closest situation in RONR is a committee whose chair delivers the report of the committee, moves any recommendations that are included in the report, and if there is discussion, participates in debate on the merits of the motion(s) and then votes on their adoption. But that vote takes place not in the committee, but in the parent assembly to which the committee reports. And when the committee chair casts that vote, he is not doing it as a committee chair, and has no duty of impartiality. He is doing it as a member of the parent body and, like other committee members who are members of the parent body, votes freely. I have made an assumption that all uses of the word "chair" in your question refer to the same individual.
  3. Hmm. I seem to have quoted this without replying to it. And whatever I was going to say has slipped my alleged mind. As you were. Apologies for the interruption.
  4. Was there a nominating committee? Did it report? Were additional nominations by petition received? If so, then I think the only reasonable course of action is to hold the election as soon as possible. Discipline of those who failed in their duties is certainly an option, but that's a different question. I'm not sure what the language "voting...if necessary" means. Since ballots are required, when would voting not be necessary?
  5. I concur with my colleagues that paragraph c. appears to make ineligible anyone who did not follow the application process. Write-in votes may only be made for eligible candidates. If no one else is eligible, then write in votes would seem to be unavailable.
  6. By what mechanism was the vote taken? If no ballot vote was required, and no other candidate was nominated, she should have been declared elected by acclamation. But if nobody raised a point of order, I do not believe a continuing breach exists, so I can't suggest any recourse.
  7. Are you expecting many absentees or abstentions at the next meeting? I ask because a 2/3 vote of 10 voters is 7, while a majority of ten members is only 6. With one or two members not voting, the two thresholds would be equal at 6 votes. Even with previous notice the vote to adopt a Special Rule of Order cannot be reduced to a "simple" majority vote But I suspect this may be immaterial. As previous notice is defined, it applies to notice of intent to introduce a question, and based on the facts presented, the motion was already introduced (moved, seconded, stated) and then during debate, postponed definitely to the next meeting. If so, previous notice is no longer a factor, and the 2/3 vote is not available.. I think you're going to require 6 votes for passage, a majority of the entire membership. Stay tuned for additional opinions. Edited to add: Of course the above rules are contained in RONR 12th ed., which you have not yet adopted as your parliamentary authority, so there's that.
  8. Why does the board let the president get away with this behavior?
  9. No, that only applies if the president leaves office before the end of their term, and the VP would only serve as president until that same end of term. When the terms end, it's time for an election.
  10. I wish you better luck getting those answers than I had in the first reply.
  11. No the motion to approve the agenda does not get into the merits of motions or suggest subsidiary motions that might be offered when they become pending. Those would not be germane to the question, which is: which items should be on the agenda and which should not. Motions to (re)commit an agenda item, amend it, postpone it, etc., are only in order when the question actually becomes pending, not when the agenda is being considered.
  12. That is an interesting interpretation of 33:15. In the example cited, the maker would already have indicated his consent as the first step in the process. But presuming it would be in order for another member, out of the blue, to move that the maker be granted permission when he had never sought it, and were that seconded by a third member and adopted, I submit that there would be no need to consult the maker or gain his consent. Being now endowed with permission to withdraw his motion he could simply elect not to do so.
  13. If the maker requests leave to do anything, he is seeking permission, not granting it. I believe that your reading of 33:15 is incorrect. That applies in the case where the member has already requested leave to withdraw, the chair has already put the question as a unanimous consent request, objection has already been heard, and the chair has elected not to put the question on his own accord. If another member then seeks leave for the original mover to withdraw the motion, the original mover is assumed to be in favor and so this motion does not require a second. The original mover neither seconds nor grants anything at that point.
  14. It is still his own motion and would be so recorded in the minutes. However, the adoption of a poison-pill amendment is just the sort of thing that might make him "change his mind".
  15. I think you meant "the assembly's permission"?
  16. Only if the Annual Meeting authorized them to do so. RONR recommends against waiting a full year to approve minutes even in good times. It recommends authorizing a committee or the board to do so.
  17. I would agree if this ladder-pulling were actually possible. However it is not possible without the concurrence of the members assembled by at least a two-to-one margin. Those who feel there are still things that need saying can simply vote against ordering the Previous Question. Even so, should two-thirds of the members agree that this is a rude practice, they have only to adopt a Special Rule of Order, as I have seen in practice, that the Previous Question may only be moved immediately on gaining recognition, and is out of order once any reference is made to the merits of the motion. I would not necessarily support the adoption of such a rule, but it's an available course of action.
  18. My sources tell me that it was considered, but ultimately rejected on the grounds that we can't handle the truth.
  19. Language, especially English with its mongrel origins, does change through usage, and different changes occur at different rates. There are plenty of people who bristle and balk at even the slightest change. But there are others who are umbrageous that change happens not nearly fast enough to suit them. (I respectfully suggest that examples of both sorts can be found no farther away than this very forum.) I, for one, will make an effort to remain calm when I encounter the use of either "Madam Chairman" or the ungendered singular "they", in the fervent hope that it will all work out in the end.
  20. If the rules in RONR apply, No, it is far too late to change one's vote once the result is announced, and certainly not after the meeting is adjourned. Members have the personal responsibility to understand things they vote on, just as they do to read things they sign. Additionally, if the rules in RONR apply, the member does not get 2 votes!
  21. That's fine. RONR neither mandates nor prohibits numbering things, so whatever works for you is copacetic.
  22. That's incorrect. See: RONR (12th Ed.) 10:56
  23. Agreeing with @J. J., a motion that conflicts with the charter can and should be ruled out of order, but it would not be proper to rule a motion out of order on the basis that it conflicts with past organizational practice, which RONR calls custom. The primary way that custom is changed is to adopt a motion that conflicts with it. Adopted rules take precedence over custom.
  • Create New...